Fuzzy Libertarianism

[Jerry Freeman]

Well, that's two votes for putting a sock in it.

Fogs out at four.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Nanohedron]

Winnie's da man.

[Jerry Freeman]

Winnie's da man.

Fogs out at 1.2.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Nanohedron]

I would maintain that law arose from the man's attempt to put himself right with God's cosmos. In other words, law reflects a religious vision: man's place in the world.

I think that law as an element of society goes back farther than humanity itself. Nonhuman societies -canid, feline and avian, for example- operate by societal norms, which, I suggest, are really no different from law as we understand it. Deviation invites consequences, whether corrective or dire. Still, it seems to me that the human expression of societal regulation is unique in its self-justifying baggage.

How's that fog out, Jerry?

(edited for nuance and to thicken the fog)

[Jerry Freeman]

17, I think. It's a lot of work, and I'm not going to do it twice to check the answer.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Bloomfield]

Back in my last post I referred to Hayek's recognition that rule of law is a sine qua non for a market economy (sorry, Bloomie, some things you just have to say in Latin). But that raises the question of: just what is law? I would maintain that law arose from the man's attempt to put himself right with God's cosmos. In other words, law reflects a religious vision: man's place in the world. In the West, that means the Christian world view (Israel, Greece, Jesus, Rome, Barbarians, etc.), as we know it still. But in America, what we largely have is the Enlightenment version of Christianity: gentle Jesus meek and mild, turn that cheek again and again, love is all you need, etc. We can go into the merits of all that some other time. ....

Man, you've gotta lay off Finnis.

[Nanohedron]

17, I think. It's a lot of work, and I'm not going to do it twice to check the answer.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Jerry Freeman]

My favorite, actually written somewhere, execu-speak sentence:

"The effective performance of this component is critically dependent on the maintenance of its dimensional integrity."

Translation:

"It won't work if it's bent."

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Nanohedron]

Sounds a lot like like piperspeak, too!

[elendil]

Man, you've gotta lay off Finnis.

This will no doubt surprise you, but I've never read anything by Finnis. At least not books, possibly some articles I don't recall. I'm not actually big into moral philosophy per se, and my favorite authors in that regard would probably be Russell Hittinger and Alasdair MacIntyre, the apostate Marxist. My recollection is that Finnis actually tries to incorporate kantian elements into Catholic moral philosophy (as, in fact, does JP2). That's precisely what I oppose.

[Bloomfield]

Man, you've gotta lay off Finnis.

This will no doubt surprise you, but I've never read anything by Finnis. At least not books, possibly some articles I don't recall. I'm not actually big into moral philosophy per se, and my favorite authors in that regard would probably be Russell Hittinger and Alasdair MacIntyre, the apostate Marxist. My recollection is that Finnis actually tries to incorporate kantian elements into Catholic moral philosophy (as, in fact, does JP2). That's precisely what I oppose.

If my memory doesn't cheat me, you'd have to look pretty hard for Kantian elements in Finnis, at least in the Natural Law book; he bases it on a conception of virtue that I (in my ignorance) wouldn't consider to far from neo-Aristotelians.

MacIntyre is good, but also very Kantian in that his fundamental view of the world is one of loss and decadence. Now who is this JP2 you mention? (Rumor has it btw, that Finnis writes the legal/moral philiosophy stuff for our friend in the V; so I wonder what Ratzinger is good for ).

Anyway, good weekend.

[jim stone]

I like Finnis, he's a law prof at Notre Dame.

About the libertarian idea of keeping the gov
off our backs, I think this as an idea in popular
culture flows significantly from the frontier,
that people became very individual and misfits
could move on to new parts on this
immense continent, that finally
you carved a life for yourself out of the
wilderness by your own efforts.
Also part of the meaning that guns
have in American life. That
as much as the enlightenment.

That's a way we're not likely to be like
Sweden, at least not anytime soon; not
a relatively small family of people from
a common stock who have lived together
in the same rather small area for
thousands of years--
different ethos. I suspect this has
something to do with why we're
so hard for outlanders to fathom. Best

[elendil]

If my memory doesn't cheat me, you'd have to look pretty hard for Kantian elements in Finnis, at least in the Natural Law book; he bases it on a conception of virtue that I (in my ignorance) wouldn't consider to far from neo-Aristotelians.

MacIntyre is good, but also very Kantian in that his fundamental view of the world is one of loss and decadence. Now who is this JP2 you mention? (Rumor has it btw, that Finnis writes the legal/moral philiosophy stuff for our friend in the V; so I wonder what Ratzinger is good for ).

I can't swear I'm right about Finnis--as I said, I don't know for a fact that I've ever read anything by him. I have read about him, but not recently. It's possible I'm confusing him with someone else and that he is actually opposed to the introduction of kantian elements into Catholic thought. However, to characterize MacIntyre as kantian because "his fundamental view of the world is one of loss and decadence" is too tenuous for me. My understanding is that he espouses a basically Aristotelean style ethics of virtue, and Kant's moral thought is certainly dictated by the Critique of Pure Reason.

As for the mystery man in the V, if you have any doubts about his kantian orientation, read the footnotes to Crossing the Threshhold... (Sorry, I don't personally own a copy, so can't lend it to you.). His kantian roots go way, way back, so I don't think both views of Finnis could be true in this regard. I think you'll find that more European influences are probably at work here. I've heard that Rocco Buttiglione is a major influence (his claim to fame, in my book, is his claim that Descartes was a "misunderstood Augustinian." Augustinian in derivation, yes, misunderstood, not.)

In fact, re that mystery man, I've read a very convincing article by a philosopher (or theologian) at Catholic U. who maintains the following re the mystery man's writings with regard to his so-called "theology of the body": the MM is attempting in these writings to find a scriptural basis for the Church's teaching on HV because the MM doesn't buy into natural law morality. I find this convincing because, in Crossing the Threshhold..., the MM explicitly states in the footnotes that Kant provides the philosophical version of the "evangelical counsels," which the MM appears to equate with Christian morality. Thus, we have the confluence, in the MM's mind, of Christian morality and what he calls "kantian personalism:" for him they are philosophical equivalents. As I've said before, I regard the idea that the Christian scriptures, and specifically the words of Jesus, provide a moral philosophy or theology to be, well, erroneous and quite counter productive to sound thought. I'm not saying that important elements of a moral philosophy cannot be found in the Christian scriptures, but I am saying that that is emphatically not what the "evengelical counsels" are about.

stoner wrote:

About the libertarian idea of keeping the gov
off our backs, I think this as an idea in popular
culture flows significantly from the frontier

I would basically agree with this, as I've said in other posts. While Americans tend to underrate the influence of European strains of thought on the US, Europeans tend to underrate the influence of unique factors in the American experience and environment. So, yes, there is not a simple one to one correspondence. How it will all work out in the end, time will tell. Will our native influences predominate, or we ultimately follow the European path?

[jim stone]

OO7, the closest the Brits have come to an action hero,
is an operative for a group. He's LICENSED to kill.

But the typical American action hero is acting
alone. If he's part of an organization, it's turned
on him and is hunting him, or at least has
completely deserted him. He's not socialized.

Rembmer Gary Cooper, the sheriff in High Noon,
goes about desperately trying to get
help from the townsfolk to fight the
three outlaws who are coming to
kill him, and finally must face them alone.
That's us.

[elendil]

But the typical American action hero is acting
alone. If he's part of an organization, it's turned
on him and is hunting him, or at least has
completely deserted him. He's not socialized.

Shane?

Rembmer Gary Cooper, the sheriff in High Noon,
goes about desperately trying to get
help from the townsfolk to fight the
three outlaws who are coming to
kill him, and finally must face them alone.
That's us.

Woosh! I hear ya.